Survey results - enrd.ec.europa.euenrd.ec.europa.eu/.../GPW9_WD_Survey_Results_20140514.pdf · Survey results Good Practice Workshop “Climate change mitigation and adaptation: measuring

1

Survey results

Good Practice Workshop “Climate change mitigation

and adaptation: measuring the scope and assessing

the outcomes”

14/05/2014

Evaluation Helpdesk

Chaussée Saint-Pierre 260

B-1040 Brussels

Tel. +32 2 736 18 90

E-mail [email protected]

2

CONTENT

1. About this working paper ................................................................................................ 3

1.1. Rational ................................................................................................................... 3

1.2. Purpose and target group ........................................................................................ 4

2. Main findings of the survey ............................................................................................. 5

2.1. Framework .............................................................................................................. 5

2.2. Findings .................................................................................................................. 5

3. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................12

ANNEX 1 - Questionnaire .....................................................................................................13

3

1. About this working paper

1.1. Rational

Climate change (CC) is recognised to be a global challenge taking in account the range of actions of

modern societies and economic systems connected to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and on the

magnitude of sectors and regions to be affected by climate change.

Hence the discussion on climate change is always containing two aspects:

how to reduce the net balance of GHG emissions held responsible for global warming either by

minimising emissions or by maximising carbon sequestration (the mitigation side), and,

how to adapt to future climate change in order to prepare for and lessen the negative impacts

and at the same time exploit beneficial changes (the adaptation side).

The EU has played a leading role in climate change mitigation e.g. through the contribution to the

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and its subsequent

agreements. One of the main targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy is the reduction of GHG emissions

by 20% (compared to 1990 levels).

Agriculture in most member states is responsible for a large share of GHG emissions, especially

Nitrous Oxide and Methane. At EU Level the agricultural sector has reported emissions of 462 million

tonnes of CO2-equivalent of GHG in 2007, representing 9.2 % of total EU emissions1.

At the same time, agriculture is dependent on rainfall, temperature, soil quality etc., all factors directly

affected by climate change, which are becoming increasingly evident for both the land-use based

sectors as well as rural areas more generally. While technologically advanced, there are limits to the

extent the European agriculture can cope with changing climatic conditions.

Since Agriculture and Forestry are “using” the bulk of non-urban land in the EU, the Common

Agricultural Policy (CAP) can play an important role in increasing the resilience of rural areas to the

effects of climate change through the integration of climate change adaptation considerations into the

entire cycle of production and life in rural areas.

Rural areas need therefore to address this double challenge of reducing the net balance of GHG

emissions while at the same time adapting to the impacts of climate change. This is not an easy task,

nor does it affect all Member States or their regions in the same way. A study on the adaptation to

Climate Change in the agricultural sector has divided Europe in 5 agro-climatic zones, each affected in

a different manner; some benefiting from warmer weather, more rainfall, higher CO2 concentration and

extended vegetation growth periods, others hampered by drought, floods or fires.

Managing Authorities (MAs) are at the moment approaching the ex post evaluation of 2007-2013

RDPs and designing the 2014-2020 programmes. For that reason the Evaluation Helpdesk of the

European Network for Rural Development organised in February 2014 in collaboration with the

Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment of the Republic of Cyprus a Good Practice

Workshop (GPW) on “Climate Change mitigation and adaptation: Assessing the scope and measuring

the outcomes”.

Linked to the workshop the Evaluation Helpdesk conducted a short survey among Member States

considering the level of awareness about climate change impacts and requirements, lessons learnt in

1 European Commission, (2009),SWD The role of European Agriculture in climate change mitigation, SEC(2009)

1093 final, Brussels

4

the 2007-2013 period and challenges for the integration of mitigation and adaptation in the 2014-2020

RDPs.

1.2. Purpose and target group

The purpose of this paper is:

to illustrate the main opinions and considerations expressed by the Member States in the survey

on climate change mitigation and adaptation;

to highlight common issues and problems about climate change mitigation and adaptation;

to identify good practices regarding climate change mitigation and adaptation;

to discuss methodological challenges in integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation;

and to formulate some conclusions and recommendations on climate change mitigation and

adaptation for the ex post evaluation of 2007-2013 RDPs and designing the 2014-2020

programmes.

The target group of the paper are Managing Authorities, the scientific community, consultants,

evaluators and other RDP stakeholders.

5

2. Main findings of the survey

2.1. Framework

The survey was conducted among MAs of RDPs (in countries with regional programmes, one survey

response was provided). The questionnaire is provided in Annex 1.

The objectives of the survey were to:

Assess experiences in the current RDPs;

Identify obstacles and potential challenges faced to implement climate change mitigation and

adaptation activities in the new RDPs;

Provide background information for the Good Practice Workshop.

A total of 16 respondents from 16 Member States (AT, BE-Flanders, CY, EE, GR, HU, HR, IE, IT, MT,

LV, LT, SK, SE, Sl and UK-Northern Ireland) provided in-depth comments. Italy contributed with one

survey including average values for all regional RDPs. The interim results of the survey were

presented and discussed with the participants during the Good Practice workshop.

While the survey is far from representative, it offers some interesting insights on the situation in

different geographic regions of the EU.

2.2. Findings

Awareness

The first part of the survey explored and assessed the awareness level of stakeholders in the MS in

relation to climate change (CC) mitigation and adaptation to be addressed through RDPs. It should be

noted that the survey represents the opinion of the respondents, mostly MA officials. The results are

illustrated below:

Figure 1 Level of awareness

Source: Helpdesk of the European Evaluation Network for Rural Development

Figure 1 shows that the survey respondents see themselves and the public sector as strongly aware of

the implications and challenges of CC mitigation and adaptation integration in the RDP, while land

strong; 38%

strong; 6%

0%

some; 63%

some; 69%

some; 75%

little or no; 25%

little or no; 25%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

national/regionaland local governments

land managers

general public

6

users (e.g. farmers) are considered to be aware only to some extent, and the general public is

considered of having rather limited awareness.

When differentiating between CC mitigation and adaptation, the level of readiness for meeting the

future challenges varies considerably, with mitigation having a much stronger footing in relation to

adaptation, see Figure 2.

Figure 2 Level of readiness to face future challenges on CC mitigation and adaptation


This finding corresponds well with other sources, e.g. the ENRD Synthesis Report from 2010, where

the understanding of CC mitigation considerations is identified in a focused number of measures,

whereas CC adaptation is much broader and less tackled. Indeed CC adaptation is more demanding,

requiring technical know-how in a very broad range (e.g. from genetic diversity and water

management to risk insurance schemes) and coordination between sectors, regions and policy

making. Long term processes, lack of clear quantifiable targets (in comparison to mitigation) and

considerable uncertainties for the effects at the local level accentuate the problem. In bibliography

sometimes the term “no-regrets adaptation”2 appears i.e. beneficial measures regardless of future

climate trends, but which will be particularly beneficial if projected climate change occurs.

These factors lead to confusion and ambiguity about what CC adaptation really constitutes of; in some

cases CC adaptation is simple reaction to a symptom of climate change, without any change in the

modus operandi of the rural area or the agricultural sector affected3.

RDP measures in action

The next issue in the survey addressed the activation of CC relevant measures in the RDP. Figure 3

illustrates in how many cases the RDP measures address CC (Q1) and if CC impacts of the RDPs

(Q2) were assessed.

2 OECD (2011), Handbook on the OECD-DAC Climate Markers, Paris

3 Slee, B., (2014), oral comment during the GPW, Larnaca

7

Figure 3 Implementation and assessment of impacts in the RDP

Q1 Is climate change mitigation or adaptation currently addressed by the composition of measures of your RDP?

Q2: Have you conducted any assessment of impacts (positive or negative) of the different RDP measures of the current period on climate change?


While the vast majority of the respondents consider that the RDP are addressing climate change

mitigation and adaptation, there is also a very large majority that admits that there is little systematic

assessment of impacts from relevant measures and activities. Hence the effect of those measures

remains unknown.

In most cases the methodological fundament regarding assessment of impacts is more developed on

CC mitigation issues, especially on renewable energy sources. There it is relatively easy to establish

universal methodologies, system boundaries and reference units4 since the same basic principles

apply everywhere. In CC adaptation however only ad-hoc, tailor fit solutions apply; hence the

assessment of impacts is much less developed, although there is very close interrelation among the

two aspects of climate change5. Even for the agro-environmental/climate measures of the new

programming period, an approach of compensation of lost income and cost incurred in comparison to

“conventional agriculture” prevails as the array of methodological tools for this assessment is much

more developed, while the quantification of the benefits of adaptive actions needs to be also

considered6.

The survey respondents reported mainly about assessments regarding reduction in energy use at the

holding level, replacement of fossil energy through renewable energy sources (RES), increase of CO2

sequestration using low tillage and organic farming, fertiliser use restrictions etc. The range of

approaches spans from qualitative classification (positive, negative, neutral) to detailed modelling and

quantification of the effects.

4 E.g see GIUDICE, A.(2013), Environmental Assessment of the Citrus Fruit Production In Sicily using LCA,

Catania 5 E.g. see Deichmann, U. And Zhang, F., (2013), Growing Green The Economic Benefits of Climate Action, World

Bank, Washington 6 E.g. see Sulima, K., (2013), “Agri–environment–climate measure in Rural Development 2014-2020”,

Presentation at ENRD Workshop, Brussels

Yes; 81%

No; 6%

Not sure; 13%

Yes; 31%

No; 63%

Not sure; 6%

8

These first experiences have identified many possible areas of improvements, e.g. in the calculation of

net effects, instead of simply recording power production from RES, and have provided useful hints to

be considered in the RDP ex-post evaluation.

Other climate change relevant policies and actions

The next question in the survey focused on the knowledge about other national or regional policies

and actions that effectively address CC mitigation or adaptation. The majority replied that such

attempts indeed exist.

Figure 4 Existence of other climate change relevant policies and actions


Most of the respondents (75%) mentioned actions relevant to CC mitigation, either through incentives

and support schemes for RES issues either as electricity or biofuels (e.g. Cyprus, Sweden, Italy etc.)

or through various specific programmes providing support to farmers to reduce energy inputs,

eradicate diseases which burden the CO2 balance, electro-mobility, support of CO2 sequestration etc.

Adaptation and awareness also appear but in much less intensity (e.g. in Flanders, Hungary and

Latvia).

It is interesting to note, that the pattern of CC mitigation awareness and understanding is repeated

also here; CC mitigation actions are easy to grasp and to implement through a set of policy tools (tax

and investment incentives, monitoring mechanisms etc.). CC adaptation remains more challenging to

achieve through concrete policy action.

Relevant RDP Measures in the period 2007-2013

The next set of questions in the survey drew the attention at the implementation of climate change

actions within the common RDP and other programme-specific measures. The respondents were

asked to assess which measures for each Axis contribute the most to CC mitigation and adaptation.

The graphs below illustrate their answers.

Yes; 75%

No; 6%

Not sure; 19%

9

Figure 5 Contribution of RDP measures (M121, M125, etc.) to CC mitigation and adaptation for Axis 1


Measure 121 (Modernisation of agricultural holdings) was considered as the most relevant and

effective, especially concerning RES and energy efficiency, so contributing to CC mitigation. Also

measure 122 (Improvement the economic value of forest) and measure 123 (adding value to

agricultural and forestry products) contribute to CC mitigation, showing the prominent importance of

woods as “CO2 sinks” is prominent. Measures 111 (Vocational training and information action), 112

(Setting up young farmers), 114 (Advisory services) and 115 (Setting up farm management, relief and

advisory services) pose a conglomerate of training, information, awareness and advisory services

which do not directly address climate change but which have a supporting role. Measure 125

(improving and developing infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and

forestry) can be considered as partly CC adaptation oriented, especially when concerning water

efficiency infrastructures.

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

121

125

114

122

111

123

115

112

strong little no

10

Figure 6 Contribution of RDP measures (M214, M213, etc.) to CC mitigation and adaptation for Axis 2


In Axis 2, measure 214 (agri-environmental measures) is most prominently contributing to CC, mainly

to mitigation. The range of activities implemented under measure 214 is very broad but the main

effects are brought through reduction of energy and fertiliser inputs or through spatial extensification.

Strong contribution to CC mitigation is also observed for the measures 213 (NATURA 2000 payments

linked to WFD) and 221 (first afforestation). Other Measures with a moderate contribution to CC

mitigation are measure 212 (payments in areas with handicaps), measure 224 (NATURA 2000

payments) and the forestry related measures (e.g. measure 225, measure 222, measure 223) serving

primarily the aim of carbon sequestration. Contribution to CC adaptation is observed for measures 216

and 227 (non-productive investments) and measure 226 (Restoring forest potential). However the

focus of the survey was not in the exact delineation of mitigation and adaptation issues addressed by

the measures. Hence further research is necessary.

Looking at Axes 3 and 4 a similar pattern to Axis 1 is observed. Under measure 311 a very large

number of RDP have fostered “increased use of renewable energy” through the investment support for

installation of power generators and raw material supply chains. Also in the other mentioned

measures, e.g. measure 312 (business creation) or measure 323 (heritage) the main argument was

either power production from RES or energy efficiency. Similar actions are also found in Local

Development Strategies developed under Measure 41 and it seems that the CC adaptation potential

of diversification and local development was overlooked. The ENRD has produced a series of country

profiles which clearly support this finding7

7 ENRD (2011), , last assessed 17.03.2014

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

214

213/221

212

224/227

225/226

216

211/222/223

215

strong little no

11

Figure 7 Contribution of RDP measures (M311, M41, etc.) to CC mitigation and adaptation for Axes 3 and 4


Main obstacles and challenges for the 2014-2020 period

Looking at the future, the survey shows that Member States are facing certain obstacles in

programming and evaluating climate change actions of the new RDP..

The survey respondents reported a long list of obstacles and challenges, clustered as follows:

Methodological framework: confusion of terms like mitigation, adaptation, resilience and

sustainability, lack of baselines and indicators, complex, non-linear and long term relationships,

difficulties in conducting quantitative ex-ante assessment, difficulties in monitoring effects and

estimating net effects, poor methodological proof of economic efficiency of the measures (e.g.

on marginal abatement costs ranking), difficulties in providing unambiguous policy advice.

Programme framework: novelty of relevant measures for the RDP and the farmers, limitation

of funds, difficulties to formulate adequate project selection criteria, weak incentives, difficulties

with compliance checks, verification and control, difficulties in integrating this horizontal issue in

the RDP’s intervention logic, difficulties in setting proper targets in the new RDP, difficulties in

coordinating actions and utilising complementarities with other programmes and actions.

Programme operating environment and context: low awareness and acceptance, know-how

gaps, low farmers’ participation in relevant measures among others due to the small farms

structure and the complexity of some of the actions, land-use conflicts and vested interests,

contradictory policy signals (income support and compensation vs. public goods valuation),

conflict between market trends and climate change action imperatives.

The methodological challenges are the most prominent, therefore methodological support seems to

have the highest priority for the Member States, however, also issues related to the programme

framework and context are closely intertwined, so they should not be overlooked.

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

311

41

323

312

313

421

strong little no

12

3. Conclusions

Summing up, the survey produced a snapshot of the awareness level about CC, the experiences with

CC related RDP measures in the period 2007-2013 and the identification of obstacles and challenges

for CC mitigation and adaptation for the programming period 2014-2020.

As a first conclusion the difference on awareness and readiness between CC mitigation and CC

adaptation is remarkable. Mitigation aspects are well understood, partially due to the clarity of the

concept of GHG and especially CO2 emission reductions. Adaptation is a more intangible concept;

hence less understood or addressed.

CC awareness and readiness diminishes (or is perceived as doing so) as one moves from the public

sector (RDP officials, implementing bodies, etc.) to farmers and the general public. This has serious

implications on acceptance and uptake of measures by potential RDP beneficiaries. On the other

hand, even with a fairly good CC awareness level within the RDP managing authorities, it has been

difficult to include concrete climate change actions in the RDPs.

Methodological gaps regarding monitoring and evaluation, especially for CC adaptation hamper the

broad implementation of climate change actions. These gaps are related to lack of experience with

some type of measures, lack of baselines and methodologies and thus difficulties in providing

unambiguous policy advice. This in turn has an impact on awareness and willingness to introduce

these activities.

For the period 2014-2020 rural development policy aims to improve the competitiveness of agriculture,

enhance the sustainable management of natural resources, enhance climate action and ensure

balanced territorial development of rural areas. For this purpose the policy defines 6 rural development

priorities and 18 corresponding Focus Areas, of which 2 are related to climate change issues:

Priority 4: restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems dependent on agriculture and

forestry and

Priority 5: promoting resource efficiency and supporting the shift towards a low carbon and

climate resilient economy in agriculture, food and forestry sectors

It should be noted that climate action can also be delivered under other rural development priorities

and Focus Areas, for example through targeted efforts to prepare rural areas to deal with water

scarcity, harvest shortfalls, floods, newly appearing or reappearing diseases etc. Rural development

priority 1 on innovation and knowledge transfer is also expected to contribute by fostering applied

research on climate resilient crops and low-energy cropping systems or targeted training and capacity

building.

13

ANNEX 1 - Questionnaire

14

1. To what extent are the national/regional and local governments aware of the need for the rural

sectors to contribute to European, national and regional climate change targets? (mark one box)

☐ There is strong awareness

☐ There is some awareness

☐ There is very little or no awareness

2. Besides the RDP, does your national/regional government implement policies that address

effectively climate change mitigation or adaptation in rural land use and rural development?

(mark one box)

☐ Yes

☐ No

☐ Not sure

If yes, please give a brief description of ONE good example if possible

Description:

3. To what extent do you consider land managers are aware of the need for the rural areas to

contribute to climate change mitigation or adaptation? (mark one box)




4. To what extent do you consider the general public is aware of the need for the rural areas to

contribute to climate change mitigation or adaptation? (mark one box)




In relation to the programming period 2007-2013

5. Is climate change mitigation or adaptation currently addressed by the composition of measures

of your current RDP? (mark one box)

☐ Yes

☐ No

☐ Not sure

15

6. Which measures within your RDP are expected to contribute to climate change mitigation and

adaptation? Please mark with an “x” the selected options

Measure code

Contribution

No

contribution A little Quite a lot A lot

Not

implemented

111

Vocational training and information actions, including diffusion of

scientific knowledge and innovative practises for persons engaged in

the agricultural, food and forestry sectors (Article 20 (a) (i) of Reg.

(EC) N° 1698/2005)

112 Setting up of young farmers (Article 20 (a) (ii) of Reg. (EC) N°

1698/2005)

113 Early retirement of farmers and farm workers (Article 20 (a) (iii) of

Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

114 Use of advisory services by farmers and forest holders ( Article 20 (a)

(iv) of Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

115 Setting up of farm management, farm relief and farm advisory

services, as well as of forestry advisory services (Article 20 (a) (v) of

Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

121 Modernisation of agricultural holdings (Article 20 (b) (i) of Reg.

(EC) N° 1698/2005)

122 Improvement of the economic value of forests (Article 20 (b) (ii) of

Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

123 Adding value to agricultural and forestry products (Article 20 (b)

(iii) of Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

124 Cooperation for development of new products, processes and

technologies in the agriculture and food sector and in the forestry

sector (Article 20 (b) (iv) of Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

125 Improving and developing infrastructure related to the development

and adaptation of agriculture and forestry (Article 20 (b) (v) of

Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

126 Restoring agricultural production potential damaged by natural

disasters and introducing appropriate prevention actions (Article

20 (b) (vi) of Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

131 Helping farmers to adapt to demanding standards based on

Community legislation (Article 20 (c) (i) of Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

132 Supporting farmers who participate in food quality schemes (Article

20 (c) (ii) of Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

133 Supporting producer groups for information and promotion

activities for products under food quality schemes (Article 20 (c) (iii)

of Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

141 Supporting semi-subsistence agricultural holdings undergoing

restructuring (Article 20 (d) (i) of Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

142 Supporting setting up of producer groups (Article 20 (d) (ii) of Reg.

(EC) N° 1698/2005)

211 Natural handicap payments to farmers in mountain areas (Article

36 (a) (i) of Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

212 Payments to farmers in areas with handicaps, other than mountain

areas (Article 36 (a) (ii) of Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

213 Natura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC

(WFD) (Article 36 (a) (iii) of Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

214 Agri-environment payments (Article 36 (a) (iv) of Reg. (EC) N°

1698/2005)

215 Animal welfare payments (Article 36 (a) (v) of Reg. (EC) N°

1698/2005)

216 Support for non-productive investments (Article 36 (a) (vi) of Reg.

16

(EC) N° 1698/2005)

221 First afforestation of agricultural land (Article 36 (b) (i) of Reg.

(EC) N° 1698/2005)

222 First establishment of agroforestry systems on agricultural land

(Article 36(b) (ii) of Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

223 First afforestation of non-agricultural land (Article 36 (b) (iii) of

Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

224 Natura 2000 payments (Article 36 (b) (iv) of Reg. (EC) N°

1698/2005)

225 Forest-environment payments (Article 36 (b) (v) of Reg. (EC) N°

1698/2005)

226 Restoring forestry potential and introducing prevention actions

(Article 36 (b) (vi) of Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

227 Support for non-productive investments (Article 36 (b) (vii) of Reg.

(EC) N° 1698/2005)

311 Diversification into non-agricultural activities (Article 52 (a) (i) of

Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

312 Support for business creation and development (Article 52 (a) (ii)

of Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

313 Encouragement of tourism activities (Article 52 (a) (iii) of Reg. (EC)

N° 1698/2005)

321 Basic services for the economy and rural population (Article 52 (b)

(i) of Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

322 Village renewal and development (Article 52 (b) (ii) of Reg. (EC) N°

1698/2005)

323 Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage (Article 52 (b)

(iii) of Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

331 A training and information measure for economic actors operating

in the fields covered by axis 3 (Article 52 (c) of Reg. (EC) N°

1698/2005)

341 A skills-acquisition and animation measure with a view to preparing

and implementing a local development strategy (Article 52 (d) of

Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

41

Implementing local development strategies as referred to in Article

62(1)(a) with a view to achieving the objectives of one or more of the

three other axes defined in sections 1, 2 and 3 (Article 63 (a) of Reg.

(EC) N° 1698/2005)

421 Implementing cooperation projects involving the objective selected

under point (a) (Article 63 (b) of Reg. (EC) N° 1698/2005)

431 Running the local action group, acquiring skills and animating the

territory as referred to in article 59 (Article 63 (c) of Reg. (EC) N°

1698/2005)

Programme-specific measures (Please specify below)

17

7. Have you conducted any assessment of impacts (positive or negative) up to now of the different

RDP measures of the current period on climate change? (mark one box)

☐ Yes

☐ No

☐ Not sure

If yes, please give a brief description of what was the focus of the assessment conducted

Description:

In relation to the programming period 2014-2020

8. Which main obstacles and barriers do you expect in the implementation of climate change

related measures in the new RDP? (up to three)

1)

2)

3)

9. What are the main challenges during the ex ante assessment of the potential impacts of climate

change related measures in the new RDP? (up to three)

1)

2)

3)

10. Are the climate change mitigation or adaptation activities designed in the new RDP based on

previous experiences, knowledge and collected evidence? (mark one box)

Mitigation

☐ There is strong evidence, experience and knowledge with respect to mitigation

☐ There is some evidence with respect to mitigation

☐ There is little or no evidence with respect to mitigation

Adaptation

☐ There is strong evidence with respect to adaptation

☐ There is some evidence with respect to adaptation

☐ There is little or no evidence with respect to adaptation

11. What assistance do you most need to design the activities that address climate change

mitigation or adaptation in your new RDP?

Description:

Documents

Survey results - enrd.ec.europa.euenrd.ec.europa.eu/.../GPW9_WD_Survey_Results_20140514.pdf · Survey results Good Practice Workshop “Climate change mitigation and adaptation: measuring